THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE does not = "US STYLE GUN LAW"

We need to be careful when we get into a discussion about the right to selfdefense that our listerner/conversation partner does not hear "right to selfdefense" & then argue against "US Style Gun Laws".

People often conflate the two.

I realise now that this confusion is exactly what people like Gun Control Australia want to happen.

They want to play the fear card and have self defense = US Gun Culture.

However it a call to better "selfdefense rights" does not ipso fact require the adoption of the US Second Amendment or US Style guns laws.

As many Gun Groups and Firearms training organizations (including the USA) make very clear, a one day Concealed Carry Class is not "training to use a gun" it is merely teaching you basic legal obligations and safe handling. The recommendation is for longer training and monthly practice.

As I say, lets not slip into a discussion on false premise.

The right to carry equipment that is for use in defending yourself if you are attacked does not ipso facto demand the right to carry a firearm.

The right to defend yourself with guns you legally own, does not ipso facto equal a call to allow unlicenced and untrained people to purchase guns at Coles and Woolworths.

The right to defend yourself with guns you legally own, does not ipso facto equal a call to allow you to carry that firearm in public.

The right to defend yourself by carrying a concealed handgun for self defense is not ipso fact  a call to adopt the US Laws on concealed carry.

The right to self defense IS about ending the nonsenses that sees a pregnant woman who was subject to a stalker being punished for choosing to carry pepper spray that she bought legally over the counter.

The right to self defense IS about ending the nonsenses that sees a man who uses his legally owned firearm to shoot & kill  a knife wielding attacker that was trying to cut womans throat spend months in prison on remand until he is finally acquitted.

Rambling ends